How to win peace with Muslims: give up your religion

I couldn't agree more.

-http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1599334&postcount=843

Just food for thought, for all of us, Kalvin. It's a big world - a pool where all of us - atheists, theists and pantheists of whatever stripe - should be able to swim, no?

 

Guys just amuse checksum , hes an angry little troll who thinks he knows everything and can prove nothing.
Checksum we love you and may jesus bless you with many children

 

Yes I did. I explained what I meant by universal truth, I said it was a belief backed up by credible evidence. Credible evidence in this case would be accounts in the New Testament that hold up under criticism. For the most part, with the exemption of St. Paul's letters, it doesn't. I'm not going to go any further in my explanation though, I've already made a thread discussing this and if you like we can talk about it there.

Let me spell this out for you, because I don't think you understand. To write a genealogy for the sum of mankind, not only do you have to have an accurate account of each person in the lineage, you need to have other scholars who support your findings. What the website is trying to show you is that within the same book, within the same religion, you have two claims that completely contradict eachother, and it happens more then once. Infact it seems to be the bread and butter of the Bible, and books like it. It's completely ridiculous and that's why it's treated with such skepticism. This never seems to pierce the mental blocks of the religious, which is beyond me. I mean, if you had someone write your family tree and going through the generations you found that you didn't recognize all of the names, so then you took the job to another genealogist and the same happened, this time with different names, you would be skeptical too. With this in mind, it seems to be that when you're writing religious scripture anything goes, and that's why people become skeptical.

The writers work with logic and that part of the Bible has none. I already addressed this though. And by saying contradicting claims can mesh together, you're no longer working in the realm of truth, but that of poorly supported superstitious beliefs. Either one is true, and the other one isn't, or neither of them are true. And seeing how there is no historically supported evidence that coincides with either of these family trees, I'm going to go with the latter. To test this all one has to do is look to North America, none of the natives have a place in the family tree, while it's obvious they existed at it's supposed beginning. This is how silly the Bible gets, and how easy it is to discredit it.

 

They aren't contradictory. A little critical thought when reading the verses will allow you to see that. Like I said, because they include that it shows the site is intellectually dishonest. If you're having trouble reading you can find sites that will explain it for you.

 

Mormonism also teaches they are the only true church. I have no problem with that. The point of this whole thread is that you can't force people to compromise their beliefs because they hurt your feelings.

I don't object to Mormonism because it claims to be the only true church. My objections come from the teachings of Mormonism. Same with Islam. Not because it offends me that they don't agree with me and teach that I'm going to hell for my beliefs.

 

Well I don't agree with that and I'd like to see you explain how critical thought could lead to such a conclusion. My understanding of critical thought is that you criticize a claim until accurate testimony is presented which supports said claim.

How so? The writers of that website are working with the notion that truth is supported by credible evidence. With this understanding of truth, intellectual honesty should lead an intelligent person to treat these opposing claims as simply that, opposing claims. And as I pointed out before, one of them has to be true, or they are both false, and since both claims lack this critical evidence, it is reasonable to believe that they are infact false. Furthermore, the only way one can spin them together is through religious caveats, and I believe this kind of practise is what the term intellectual dishonesty is reserved for.

 

you can start with this. explain to me why these explainations don't suffice. They've been around for a very long time. The fact that people still think there are two creation accounts indicates to me that skeptics have a hard time thinking for themselves since they keep parroting the same stupid stuff.

http://www.thywordistrue.com/articles.php?view=all

Specifically for the creation accounts

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

 

I'll get back to you on this when I have time to read it, I'll try to read it within the week, but until then let's just agree to disagree.

 

The easiest way to peace is to give up all religion.
I believe in something (call it god if you want).
But I think all religion is a crude attempt to understand something that is far past our level of understanding.

Religion came about when people became to lazy to look for god in the human heart and instead decided to look to someone else for the easier answer.

 

"The easiest way to peace is to give up all religion."

That would work except it's very rare that a murder in the US has anything to do with religion.

The civil war had nothing to do with religion. The war for independence had nothing to do with religion.

WW I & II had nothing to do with religion. Vietnam had nothing to do with religion. Rwanda had nothing to do with religion.

John Lennon was a moron. Wars are a result of the human desire to dominate others. Religion, Race and Politics and anything else that's different is used to justify that desire. The only sure way to peace is to all think, act and look alike. And as the original post indicated, people are starting to think peace will come when we all act like Muslims.

 

I guess we have a different definition of tolerance, Kalvin. I have found your positions to be absolutist, and in this way, not really different from any of the philosophies or religious viewpoints you decry. I have read you to say "I'm right, and (catholicism, mormonism, islam, buddhism, atheism, others?) are wrong, and therefore I define that kind of view as "intolerant."

 

KalvinB, followers of Judaism, Islam, and almost all the major religions do not want to kill you. If you start talking about the Radical Muslim terrorists, you would be very close-minded, as those are killing more Muslims than followers of any other religion.

I only wish God just made it all clear, so that nobody has to disagree with others, think they are stupid, or strongly believe that they are going to hell. It's just a wish though, he could've done this along time ago if he wanted, but he just gives no heck about us.

 

KalvinB, a normal Muslim think no different from you. He does not want to kill you. He does not hate you. He is effected by terrorism more than you. He just disagrees. But he, just like you, is a 100% positive that you are going to hell for not believing in their religion. You know for a fact that anybody who does not believe in Jesus Christ as the only savior is going to hell, right?

Thing is, religions even make smart and good-hearted people look stupid, because of the nonsense they teach.

Regarding wars having nothing to do with religions, I agree. They are always people looking for power or who are just crazy that destruct in the name of their religion. However, there have been people committing crimes in the name of religions throughout history. You mentioned several wars, but hey, history does not start when the US was born. Also, I am sure most of those who were on either side of the conflicts you mentioned had thought Jesus, or whoever their savior is, was by their side. What a pity those saviors fail us a lot.

 

Why is a theologin so afraid of Islam that he would rather deny Christ and go to hell than upset them?

Atheists claim the same thing. In the very thread no less. They want to believe that they're right and all religions are wrong.

So I guess we're all intolerant. If you believe your political views are correct and one or more of those views contradicts someone else's view then you must believe they are wrong and you are right. So, unless you have no mind of your own and don't believe anything you are by your own definition intolerant or illogical.

What I'm getting from this discussion is that people think we should just stop believing anything if someone else disagrees with it.

That's rediculous.

 

Actually, not this atheist. I despise religious atheism. As I have a problem with all evangelism based on intolerance. I believe what I believe, but freely admit I could be dead wrong. Hence my original call - is there not room for all of us?

 

Nobody, except the theologin in the original post, is claiming otherwise.

So you have exactly zero beliefs that contradict someone else?

 

These two things are different. I don't believe in divinity, but admit I cannot know and therefore may be wrong. I do not call your religion "same old crap," etc., as you have done for any number of beliefs held by others. I respect your beliefs and your right to believe as you do.

 

No. They're not. Politics, your view on the war, everything are beliefs just like religion is. If you believe anyone is wrong about anything then by your definition you are intolerant.

When have I ever told anyone they couldn't believe something?

There's a huge gapping difference telling someone they *can't* believe something because I disagree or because it offends me and telling them they *shouldn't* because the evidence from their own books and doctrines doesn't support their view.

 

"You are full of crap. You are absolutely wrong."

"I don't believe what you believe. I may or may not be wrong in my belief."

If you don't see the difference between these two creeds, then I am afraid we are at an impasse.

 

I've never said anyone is absolutely wrong. By logic if there is a contradiction then one is wrong and one is correct or both are wrong. Whether or not they're wrong has nothing to do with me being wrong if they're wrong based on their own beliefs.

I find it hard to believe you have no strong convinctions about anything.

So if someone told you, you had to deny a core belief of yours or they'd kill you, you'd roll over?